It seems that in our political system, the pendulum, having once swung way too far one direction, just has to swing too far in the other direction.

Twenty years ago, the gun control crazies looked sure to eventually achieve all their goals, including house-to-house searches to confiscate all existing handguns and many rifles. Many gun control advocates did not support such extreme measures. But the extremists on their side were just cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs.

Gun control is now such an unfashionable idea that most Democrats run from it. But today the other extremists show an utter inability to understand how crazy they sound — and act.

You are probably aware that in the vast majority of American states, concealed handgun licenses are now easy to get, as long as you do not have a felony conviction, a recent violent misdemeanor conviction, or a mental illness history. In most American states, it is also legal to openly carry a firearm on your person.

In Arizona, and a few other Western states, open carry of handguns in cities is remarkable but not terribly shocking. In most of the country, it is a bit surprising or worse. Even people who are generally pro-gun do not like to see guns in cities, except on uniformed police officers and security guards. Yes, this is an irrational convention, because so many Americans have concealed carry permits. (Just because you do not see that someone is armed does not mean that they aren’t.) But it is a convention nonetheless — rather like the one that says it’s bad manners to show your genitals in public even though everyone’s got a set.

The open carry movement has two goals: one, to persuade state legislatures to repeal existing laws banning open carry; two, to “normalize” open carry. I have sympathy with the first goal, for several reasons. One is that situations come up where a person may need to be armed, and yet may not qualify for a concealed handgun license — perhaps because they are only 19 or 20, and most states require you to be at least 21.

Two, a person may not ordinarily feel a need to carry a gun for self-defense — but something happens, and there is no time to obtain a permit. You would then have to choose between breaking the law against concealed carry, or carrying a handgun openly for self-defense.

Three, picture this. You might be visiting a state that does not issue permits, or that makes it so difficult that you are unlikely to apply for a permit. Under those circumstances, it might be appropriate, under some conditions, to carry a handgun openly for self-defense. I would hope that open carry in cities would be infrequent because it is so disquieting. Please: spend the relatively modest amount of money and time required to obtain a concealed handgun license now, if at all possible.

What ticks me off about some manifestations of the open carry movement, however, is the second goal: the delusion of “normalizing” open carry. This is about as likely to work as “normalizing” homosexuality by having two guys strip naked and have sex in the middle of Main Street. Guns are powerful symbols — and even those of us who are strongly pro-gun, and support widespread gun ownership and carrying, respond negatively to unnecessary displays. You can imagine the reaction from those who are ambivalent or even slightly hostile to gun ownership.

A handgun is primarily a defensive weapon: something that is easy to carry and easy to put into action in the event of a sudden and unexpected attack. By contrast, a shotgun or a rifle is primarily an offensive weapon: clumsy to carry, slow to bring into use. There are circumstances where you might have occasion to carry a long gun while going around town — but almost all of these scenarios involve flesh-eating zombies. No surprise, then, that the reaction of most people to a stranger with a long gun in a public place is concern, if not outright fear: “Is this guy a lunatic who is going to start mowing people down?”

If you need to carry a gun into a public place, and there is some good reason why you do not have a permit to carry concealed, then going for discreet is a really good idea. Consider something small and black that is not going to scare the wits out of people when you walk in the door — like this Walther PPK, or this Colt Mustang. If you are carrying a gun to make a political point — and especially if you are carrying a long gun into the children’s section of the public library — well, you’ve succeeded. You’ve convinced everyone in the library that your pet issue is more important to you than the peace of mind of every kid and adult present.

Clayton E. Cramer teaches history at the College of Western Idaho. His most recent book is My Brother Ron: A Personal and Social History of the Deinstitutionalization of the Mentally Ill (2012). He is raising capital for a feature film about the Oberlin Rescue of 1858.

I would say for both open carry or home schooling there are a small number of idiots, and a fair number who are not. I can point to examples of both doing it badly, but there are plenty who do both just fine. My essay was directed at those who seem to lack the political sense of rutabagas, and insist on open carry in about the least appropriate place with the least appropriate arms.

Look-at-me, you’re wrong on both counts. I’m very familiar with both home-schoolers and open-carriers. Rarely do the the wrong people do it. However, a huge number of teachers in government schools qualify as wrong people, because of their incompetence.

It’s taken quite a long time for homeschooling to become respectable, despite the fact that the statistics show that homeschooled kids do better in every way, including in social skills!

With regard to firearms, the Constitution is very clear in prohibiting ANY restrictions by ANYONE with regard to the right to keep and bear arms, whether open or concealed. And that’s that! Anybody who doesn’t like it is welcome to move to North Korea.

Americans tend to hyperventilate at even the most discreetly carried firearm. The media has trained Americans to think that dangers lurk all around – even though America is paradoxically one of the safest places on earth. This is paralleled by the “play in the driveway, don’t bicycle unsupervised to that playdate” type of paranoid parenting, that was not the norm when I grew up in the States.

I’ve lived in Israel for over a decade -and while I don’t wish that Americans were as blase as Israelis about the sight of soldiers carrying rifles (here they are our sons and daughters, doing mandatory service in the army) – I find many Americans get heebie-jeebies even about small handguns tucked into belt holsters.

Carrying rifles around where they aren’t needed isn’t exactly the antidote – but we’ve seen time and again that only in-your-face flouting of PC norms can break down those norms.

While there may not often be a valid reason to openly carry a long gun in an inner city or library, the point here I think is to avoid the distinction being made.
If we start making laws that allow open carry but instantly start restricting WHAT can be carried we’re no better than the gun banners who want another AWB banning weapons based on how scary they look.

These same people toting rifles and shotguns into the library to make a point would (or the vast majority of them) never do so outside of the scope of those protest actions, which makes their carrying that weapon at that point actually a valid reason to carry it.

I’m no US citizen, but were I one I’d not want my rights limited to what someone considers “appropriate” from behind some desk in Washington DC, especially when the constitution states my rights are not so to be limited. And that’s exactly the point these people are I think making, that their right to own and bear arms will not be infringed.

When was that old canard from Robert Heinlein ever true? The American West was not a polite society: Wild Bill Hickock had two pistols on him, yet was shot in the back of the head, which was rather rude if you think about it. The threat of constant gun battles do not make for good manners.

The Mafiya infested streets of Moscow in the early 90s were not polite. South Central LA in the late 80s and early 90s was not polite. Karachi is a rude, dirty city and extremely well armed. It’s just about the dumbest, most ahistorical quote available.

You should read Roger D. McGrath’s Gunfighters, Highwaymen, and Vigilantes: Violence on the Frontier. He makes a strong case that with the exception of largely single young men engaged in mutual combat (which led to a fair number of murders), even the roughest frontier communities were astonishingly free of violent crime. Outside this largely self-selected community of young toughs, there was essentially no murder, rape, robbery, or burglary–and Professor McGrath attributes at least part of this to being a highly armed society.

That’s not the only reason, and it is a mistake to assume that all or even most of this improved behavior was because of guns. But it does suggest that widespread gun carrying is a symptom of a savage society not a cause.

Per capita homocide rates of the “wild west’ never approached the levels of the “civilized cities” of the east….ever

The deadliest year in Dodge City saw less than ten murders…Dime novelists back east made the west wild, not guns.

One other thing to ponder, and its VERY important….

Who typicalaly were mature, leading male figures in a Western Town in say, 1870 – 1885, the “golden age” of the Wild West? Guys in their mid 30′s, family men, shop owners, business people, guys with a stake in the comminity? Where were THEY in their “youth”?

Answer: The Civil War….They’s SEEN death and destruction on a large scale. They’d SEEN 15 Thousand men killed in a singe afternoon. They would never be intimidated by some drunk cow-poke KID shooting a gun in THE AIR.

That kid would get his attitude adjusted pretty quick if he ever endangered any townfolk with his nonsense, because the MEN of the comminity wouldnt stand for it.

Forming a posse to chase some rag-tag “gang” of “outlaws” was not a big deal to them. These are the guys that stormed the heights of Fredericksburg, Gettysburg, fought tooth and nail in the trenches at Petersburg, and marched all over through mud, searing heat and freezing rain.

They were simple, quiet folk but they were TOUGH. They didnt like being screwed with, and wouldnt back down from a fight because they were no longer “wild eyed boys”, they were men with families, homes, busineses and a future to leave to their heirs at stake.

Generally speaking, troublesome thugs with guns lived at THEIR peril, not the other way ’round.

But thats a boring tale that doesnt make for good fiction…
Truth never does.

You are just as bad as all the other gun control people. Gun control starts with the assumption that a right is not a right. The second amendment is stated in absolute terms that should be clear to everyone and anyone who can read. The first part is a statement about “why” we have the second amendment and the second half is what the right is. And it is stated in such simplicity. “…The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” You tell me whether or not I can carry a gun that is infringement. Requiring a permit is infringement. You tell me where or what kind of gun I can carry, that is infringement. and it’s not just guns. Any arms that you can physically carry are protected; swords, knives, clubs etc. The founders meant exactly what they said.

Yahooism doesn’t help the cause and guns are not toys; and if someone should enter an establishment where there is a reasonable chance that he will leave a loaded rifle or shotgun in a corner or on a table where a quasi-supervised 9-year-old boy might have access to it, the librarian should be empowered to tell him to get his tail out of there and take the weapon with him.

One is that situations come up where a person may need to be armed, and yet may not qualify for a concealed handgun license — perhaps because they are only 19 or 20, and most states require you to be at least 21.

OK, here’s another thought: why should you need a permit for concealed carry? If you aren’t on probation or parole and you want to carry a gun beneath your coat you should be allowed to carry a gun beneath your coat.

With regard to the age restriction, if they would let you carry a gun in Iraq they should let you carry a gun in Philadelphia.

Carrying a gun was historically a right. It was not out of the ordinary. You had nothing to hide, and no one would be concerned if they saw you with one. In the days of large, single shot “belt pistols” it was pretty hard to hide one

A CONCEALED gun, historically, was somewhat odd. Not too many people carried them. Since unrestricted “open carry” was the norm, not too many saw the NEED to carry a small concealed one, when a better (larger, more effective/lethal) one was available and ACCEPTABLE to be seen with in society.

Yes yes yes there were small guns manufactured since the dawn of gunpowder, John Wikes Booth’s derringer the popular Icon that it is. But they are now famous and now collectors items, because of their RAREITY. All manufactures produced overwhelming numbers of “full size” weapons compared to “concealable” ones.

It was considered “underhanded” in those days to even need a small pistol, as you MUST be up to no good by wanting to hide one. Carrying “concealed” thus became one of the first “you need a permit to do that” type of gun laws, and its still a requirement in most places today

Times have changed. Many states have “shall issue” conditions for concealed carry, but people genearally consider the issue of open carry as a ‘Strange Request” they dont understand.

You are mistaken about the history on this, at least in the sense that you are describing a situation after concealed carry had been prohibited in some places. Single shot pistols were often surprisingly compact, and easy to carry in a coat pocket. I have held one of Paul Revere’s pocket pistols; it was about the size of my Colt Mustang. \

The decision of some Southern states to prohibit concealed carry (without even a permit process at first) in the period 1813-1840 was a convoluted way to deal with the failure of their laws against dueling, which led to an increase in young men responding to insults not with a challenge to a duel, but with immediate violence involving either knives or guns. My book Concealed Weapon Laws of the Early Republic: Dueling, Southern Violence, and Moral Reform (Praeger, 1999) details the circumstances that led up to the ban on concealed carry.

I had the same thought about here in Texas. While you cannot legally carry a handgun openly, there is no restriction on long guns. (Rifles, shotguns) They can even be carried legally into the Capitol building, so long as they are “broken” open. That law dates back to the late 1800s when critters still wandered into the building.

Actually, the law in question dates to 1871. The exact reasons why handguns were restricted, but not long guns, is a bit murky. Murder rates in the post-war era were frightfully high, probably aggravated by bitterness over emancipation of the slaves and attempts to force the freedmen back into subservience.

First you err by equating the right to carry with self defense. Secondly you believe exposed carry cannot be “normalized”.

All of the conditions gun banners tie to the second amendment are bogus.
I do not need to feel unsafe to own/carry a pistol. Nor do I need to be hunting for food to justify my longgun. My 2nd Amendment right is like my right to breathe, to move about, to meet with whom I choose, and to go to church if I like. It will take some time, but a generation or two from now guns may be seen as the tools that they are.

The political correctness movement has over the last fifty years succeeded in sensatizing the public to the sight of a firearm. Post WW2 the public was more shocked to see scantily clad adults on the street than to see someone carrying a shotgun. We have “normalized” public nudity, obscene language, and generally gross behavior because these acts were allowed by authorities. Firearms seen in public will be normalized as well as soon as it becomes commonplace.

Aside from making a political statement it is unlikely anyone will be seen in the ‘children’s library’ carrying a firearm. However it could make good sense for an adult to bring a long gun into show-and-tell to teach the kids about gun safety, hunting or target shooting. Children do not have an instinctive fear of guns…until they get into our public schools and are taught about the evils of hunting or shooting.

Clayton makes a good point. It’s the same reason a lot of lawmen in the late 19th century didn’t openly display their six guns in towns and cities. They didn’t want to look like thugs and freak out the civilians. They wanted to keep the atmosphere peaceful and non-threatening. When they did carry openly, it usually meant they were expecting trouble and had purposely decided to look (and be) dangerous. They used their guns to send a message, both to the people they were protecting and to criminals.

I think responsible modern gun owners should operate on more or less the same principle. You can wear your gun in or out, nobody has the right to stop you. But before you go flashing your pistol around town, consider what kind of message you’re sending. It’s not always about what YOU mean, it’s often about what people THINK you mean.

“You can wear your gun in or out, nobody has the right to stop you. But before you go flashing your pistol around town, consider what kind of message you’re sending. It’s not always about what YOU mean, it’s often about what people THINK you mean.”

One of the reasons for OC – or flash their guns around town – is that cops in just about every city had decided that they’re above the law and illegally stop and arrest (handcuffs, gun to the head, etc) legally carrying people every day.

In many states OC is legal, but you need a permit to CC.

My only reason to carry is me – my safety. What you may think does not concern me.

I firmly believe in the second amendment. If cops are harrassing people because they carry, then those cops need harrassed by the law. I also agree you shouldn’t need a permit to carry if your a law abiding citizen with emphasis on citizen. IF you have a criminal record and are caught carrying, then jail and throw away the key. BUT to open carry vs. concealed into areas where you might cause concern just to prove you can is simply childish. AND I don’t care what YOU think.

You don’t care what others think? That’s fine. In case you haven’t noticed, we live in a republic, and if you upset enough people without reason, they have a nasty habit of making life unnecessarily difficult. Why give antigunners more excuses to restrict open carry?

“You don’t care what others think? That’s fine. In case you haven’t noticed, we live in a republic, and if you upset enough people without reason, they have a nasty habit of making life unnecessarily difficult. Why give antigunners more excuses to restrict open carry?”

Anti-gunners … gun-grabbers …PGNOs have had all their excuses to restrict the 2nd with the aid and abet from people like you.

I’ve got the right to carry wherever I desire, with the exception of schools and .gov; why would I not protect myself in a library? Remind you, my wife and I carry 24/7 for self protection.

As I mentioned in my post, I don’t OC much for obvious reasons, but I support everyone’s right to exercise their Second Amendment rights.

Someone needs to sell open carry holsters that are designed to look fashionable and nonthreatening… Perry Ellis leather holsters, Coach holsters for the ladies, whatever.

Carrying a long gun openly when you aren’t on your way to shoot (hunt, target, kill zombies etc) is akin to wearing a “Cameo” style codpiece. At best it’s a sign of attention-whoredom, at worst it’s an active shooter about to let fly.

I hate those who suggest they are pro gun, but in fact are against the Second Amendment. “Shall not be infringed” DO NOT somehow translate into “reasonable restrictions apply”.

“The open carry movement has two goals: one, to persuade state legislatures to repeal existing laws banning open carry; two, to “normalize” open carry.”

The third reason, naturally, is to exercise your God-given right, and at the same time ‘normalize’ OC and CC.

One guy in my neck of the woods went to the library in a very rich area and waited. He waited and posted to a local forum at the same time.

The cops came and arrested him. As a result he was paid by the city and every library in the county was forced to put up a label that said carrying a firearms is legal in this county. Our permit says: “Permit to carry a Pistol,” and it does not define how it should be carried. Most definitely it is not a concealed carry permit.

So, people, keep on carrying OC or CC; the more the merrier. It’s time for the kids to learn that carrying a gun is legal while drawing a picture of one might be illegal.

“Shall not be infringed” DO NOT somehow translate into “reasonable restrictions apply“.

The Second Amendment is much stricter than the First. After all, only Congress is prohibited from legislating restrictions on speech, religion, etc, while the Second Amendment prohibits any restriction on the right to keep and bear arms, by anybody. As I recall the canons of interpretation, what the words say cannot be legitimately interpreted out of existence. However, all freedoms have been considered to be subject to reasonable-man restrictions. I’d hate to argue that the right to carry firearms trumps a property-owners right to forbid it on his own property. If you push things this far, you’re gonna lose the war for the Second Amendment.

While there are plenty of situational reasons to open carry, many of today’s OC movements are simply being provocative. We can argue back and forth whether that is a smart justification, although I come down on the side that doing something solely because it will attract attention and shock people is a silly idea, when it’s a display of deadly force it’s downright dumb.

Concealed carry is an actual public good, in that it makes target selection difficult, and downright dangerous, for the criminals. Maybe Grandma’s carrying, or maybe the guy next to her is.

It used to be that concealed carry was considered nefarious behavior. Then, in more modern times, that trend reversed itself and hidden firearms were somehow considered ‘safer’ and more socially acceptable. I guess the reasoning follows the head-in-the-sand theory. If you cant see it, it’s not really there. Open carry makes sense because 1st of all, it is a deterrent. Imagine, if you will, a criminal walking into a venue with bad intent. He sees 10 people standing around with holstered firearms on their hips. If he has any sense of self-preservation, he’s going to walk back out the door and seek an easier target. 2nd, an unconcealed weapon may be deployed more rapidly. A person with a knife standing 20′ away can reach you in 1.5 seconds. The time you spend digging your weapon out of its hiding place could cost you your life. Mr. Cramer, don’t carry openly if it makes you uncomfortable. That’s fine by me but how dare you look down your nose at those of us who choose to exercise our unalienable right. What part of “shall not be infringed” do you not understand?

Where did I propose restricting open carry? I didn’t. I did ask that a little sense would go a long ways towards not empowering the enemies of gun owners. I hear a lot of “I have a right! And if others don’t like it, tough!” That’s a great position to hold if you are convinced that elections don’t matter.

Whaa whaa whaa. What a cry baby! Children’s library, oh my oh my! Take a look at where mass killings hae taken place, on college campuses, in Columbine high schools, restaurants in Texas, it can happen ANYWHERE! The presence of a fire arm anywhere isn’t a problem if the carrier is trained and cognizant of his surroundings and knows to keep the weapon safe. Cops carry weapon EVERYWHERE they go, do they causethis idiotic rash of handwringing if they happen to be in a children’s library, NO! If YOU are an ardent supporter of gun rights do us a favor and go back to Hillary Clinton’s “village”, thats for ‘the children’. We don’t need a wimpy moron like you to help us atall!!!

In terms of the reaction that it will provoke from people who don’t much care about the issue, and wander on to it, yes. I would much prefer to see someone carrying a shotgun in the library than two guys (or even a guy and a gal) having sex in the middle of the street. But neither one of them is exactly a crowd-pleaser.

If I saw two men (or for that matter any gender mix) having sex in the street that would not normalize it for me. Seeing it repeatedly would not do it and would probably leave me with looking for a new place farther away from Loontown.

It’s a simple concept. Shoving something into someone’s face and forcing it down their throats does not normalize it. If anything it turns them off to the topic even more.

The worst face we could wear is one of a socially inept fool who cares not a bit for the sensitivities of those around us.

“It’s a simple concept. Shoving something into someone’s face and forcing it down their throats does not normalize it. If anything it turns them off to the topic even more.”

Apparently you’ve no idea of OCing.

99.9% of general population don’t even realize that someone next to them is OCing. This takes place in everywhere from libraries to gas stations. And, those who see someone OCing most of the time think s/he a cop.

Go try to make sex with your buddy in a library or gas station and lets see if you succeed to go unnoticed.

Planning on banning police officers from kids libraries? No? I did not think so. Make sure to train the kids early that special rights are granted to government and must be denied from the surfs. Or, to use your terms, apparently the police should be allowed to expose their genitals to children in the library.

I don’t think the open carry activism is particularly effective at reaching its end goals. I also am unwilling to ban open carry in the kids library.

Classic “Conservative” who loves big government, as long as its his big government. Having said all of that, if you’d like to open up a privately funded public library and request patrons not enter if open carrying, you can go right ahead. Otherwise, stop pointing your gun at me, taking my money and then telling me I can’t enter the establishment you created with my stolen cash.

My thought on the matter is simple. More guns, more people open carrying, in more places, including the library, the park, the movie theater. Everywhere.

While I am aware that our culture has created an irrational fear and hatred of all things weapon, it’s time to change that, even if it means some knucklehead carrying his shotgun into the library. Showoff.

We cannot win people to the side of reason by catering to their phobia. I don’t see that it has ever worked to persuade people. Do what is right, continue to do what is right, raise your children to be comfortable around weapons, and change the culture.

general grant makes a valid point that in the last 50 years, conduct that was socially unacceptable such as indescrete dress and obscene language has been normalized.
Here in the Great White North, in the city of Toronto, naked males or displaying their genitals has become normalized during the “Gay Pride Parades”. Openly anti-semitic demonstrations by “cultural minorities” including placards opening calling for genocide and the destruction of Israel has become normalized.
I am old enough to remember the 50′s when secondary schools had cadet corps and ALL male students had to qualify on the school rifle range but obscene language or long hair meant expulsion.
Home invasion once unheard of are now common place with burglaries and armed robberies of gun-owners facilitated by government mandated firearms registration.
Even having a pocket knife is now considered anti-social behaviour.
My theory is besides the hoplophobes, the Police seek to attain and preserve a monopoly on the use of force….despite the proven fact that the Police cannot protect you, don’t want to protect you and are not obliged to protect you.
Canadian safe storage regulations serve as a ready means to persecute firearms owners and the concequence of making life safer for brigands and felons to conduct their business.
Some of this aversion to concealed carry is similar to the prohibition and restriction of easily concealed firearms…..

You are correct that all sorts of shocking things (by the standards of 1960 or even 1970) have been normalized–but they were not normalized by guys walking down the streets of Toronto naked in 1960, were they? Normalization is a frog boiling problem–something that is done bit by bit. Note my suggestion at the end of the article that if it is really necessary either for defensive reasons or to test a law, going for a relatively subtle method of open carry makes a lot more sense.

I am not thrilled with open carry, but our police no longer can protect our citizens. With not allowing concealed guns you are making a lot of good people criminals, just because they want to protect their families and themselves by carrying a concealed weapon. There are a lot of people carrying guns now. I guess I would rather be in trouble than DEAD!

I think everyone should be taught what a gun can do and taught proper safety with firearms. Teach people to respect firer arms and teach them you can not just say I am sorry when something bad happens.They are not toys like on TV!

Who gave someone the right to take away my 2nd amendment right to bare arms any way? The police have a hard enough time defending themselves let a lone us private citizens. I am 60 years old and there have been guns in my house since before I was born. I have never shot anyone, but have to be at a sheriff discretion for a concealed carry permit. Don`t seem very free to me!

In fact, it’s people in ‘our side’ that are the most dangerous giving the grabbers all the ammo they need. Those Pro-Gun in Name Only – PGNOs – are traitors. Did you know that in NJ, if the husband show his new gun to his wife, they both are instant felons? One more ‘reasonable’ restriction I’m certain Cramer loves.

The 2nd is very clear. Someone wrote: “Shall not be infringed” DO NOT somehow translate into “reasonable restrictions apply”.

That is it. The Second Amendment does not say where we can not carry, what kind of firearms we can’t carry; more important, that we need any permission from the .gov do carry.

The only thing I can suggest in all honesty is to move to a state that has the Shall Issue law. Get your permit and carry 24/7.

You’re reading an awful lot of sentiments into Clayton’s words that I can promise you he does not share. You are pretty clearly a black and white thinker. Either someone is for you or they are against you. Someone can’t be with you on 95% of the agenda and still be with you?

I can promise you this, Clayton Cramer has done more for gun rights than either you, me, or 99% of other gun owners and gun rights activists have. How many of us can claim to have been cited by the Supreme Court landmark Second Amendment cases?

Having read the article and all of the comments, I find myself on Claton Cramers’ side in this arguement. The fact that I C.C. everywhere I go has no relantionship to OC of a rifle, shotgun or pistol/revolver. If it is legal to do so then do it, but leave the long gun in the truck or car and for G-d’s sake don’t scare the white people.

I remind myself of Luby’s massacre. By law Suzanna Hupp was disarmed before entering the doors to Luby’s cafeteria. Some whacko drives his truck in and starts shooting. No one in the cafeteria had a gun until police arrived. The best way to stop a guy with a gun is to have another guy with a gun.

Whether you like it or not, it really is for the children why we carry! I cannot make another son or daughter like the ones I have now. I will protect them the best I can. Libraries are no different from other public places where people gather. Public libraries attract weird people too.

Open carry is often a personal preference. Being disarmed is not a preference of mine.

I was not arguing about being armed. I was not even, necessarily, arguing against open carry. But there are unnecessarily provocative and frightening methods and places of open carry–like a shotgun in a library–that are going to make gun owners a lot of enemies.

The act of carrying a shotgun in the library isn’t frightening. It’s what the patrons believe of themselves that frightens them when a shotgun is carried into a library. The initial (and often irrational) belief that nothing good can come from doing so lack any indicia of a criminal act.

Since when did making the statement that walking into the children’s section of a library and spouting off a string of expletives is considered extremenly rude and not likely to win you friends become a call to restrict freedom of speech?

Nowhere did Clayton claim that such should activity should be illegal.

If you think him expressing his opinion on such is an infringement of your rights, then your expressing your opinion is an infringement of his.

It isn’t often that someone makes such a forthright acknowledgment of their ignorance. You did not even bother to read the article before responding with what you obviously know (through telepathy) what is in it.

Open Carry is a classic Catch 22. Open carry is never going to be accepted as normal unless an awful lot of people open carry on a regular basis. But an awful lot of people are never going to open carry on a regular basis unless it’s accepted as normal.

The vast majority of people who carry guns regularly aren’t dedicated enough to the proposition of open carry to go through the hassles and harassment associated with it.

“Normalizing” Open Carry needs to be done by doing it day in and day out in venues where it won’t excite a lot of comment. At the gas station, the convenience store, the grocery, the hardware store, etc. As it becomes “normal” in those places, expand it bit by bit to places that are more sensitive. This will take years to accomplish, but it will do it in the end. Going straight for the schoolhouse or the library just raises the hackles of the antis, and gives them incentive to counterattack. Let them be the frog, and let us be the ones raising the water temperature bit by bit.

“What ticks me off about some manifestations of the open carry movement, however, is the second goal: the delusion of “normalizing” open carry.”

It is normal, per our Constitution, for Americans to be armed at any time and all times. The Minutemen were armed and ready at a moment’s notice to go to war against the British. This is the what made us free and kept us free. It’s why the Swiss don’t get invaded.

‘This is about as likely to work as “normalizing” homosexuality by having two guys strip naked and have sex in the middle of Main Street. ‘

PETA has done something similar before to promote their cause.

“Guns are powerful symbols — and even those of us who are strongly pro-gun, and support widespread gun ownership and carrying, respond negatively to unnecessary displays.”

When you turn a simple tool into a symbol, you’re making it out to be something it is not. To many, a gun is just that — a tool. A device for applying known physics. However, without the gun, our country would not have been born. Our right to bear arms is protected because it is our right to be safe from enemies foreign and domestic, whether Pirate or invading military. Granted, our military strength is up enough that only the Mexican drug cartels will invade us, and we do not wage wars on them. However, Israel has gone to war with Libya over Hamas chucking projectiles over the border before.

If anything, the gun is the symbol of American freedom on par with the American Flag and the Declaration of Independence. Without guns, we are not free men.

Tennessee issues a carry permit and you may carry a firearm either concealed or openly, but when going through training (to get your permit) it is advised that you carry concealed.

There are a couple of reason for this. One being that it might scare other people seeing the gun openly displayed and two a bad guy who will also probably carry a weapon concealed sees you as a threat and will take action against you first in a bad situation.

In Florida when I was stationed in the Navy there it was an open carry state and yes I did get looks when I carried, mostly from tourists. But here in Tennessee I would definitely carry concealed!

I don’t want the bad guy to have the upper hand even if I am armed, and with all the recent shootings of open carrying Police Officers I believe it is the prudent thing to do!

My father taught my brother and me how to handle gun’s safely at ten years. He learned when he was four riding his horse to get the cow’s for milking.Our gun safety was pounded into our head’s. concealed carry is wise.